It's the same as warning people they should have three days worth of rations and supplies on them - it's a scare tactic. It's designed to make people on the fence about war to think that Iraq is more of a threat to homeland than it actually appears to be.
Any civilized nation has the ability to express ideas that can be viewed as terrorism. We're just trying to scare the Iraquis because well, they know that they're about to get the crap blown out of them.
Er... No, you missed the point. The idea behind threatening nukes and the rations is not to scare Iraq, at least not Baghdad. That serves very little purpose. The idea is to make any American who is sitting on the fence of for/against war fall to the 'for war' side. The idea is to make Americans think it really is a big, scary war that is coming. That Iraq is a very valid threat. It also serves to intimidate the Iraqis on the boarders of Iraq far from Baghdad. This will help when Yankee troops get to the towns and ask for Iraqis to either switch sides and join the U.S. or prepare to fight. If the Iraqis are aware that the Americans will (or, rather, think that the Americans will) use a nuke they will be more prone to change sides and join the Yankees, out of fear.
There will obviously be no nukes necessary for the invasion or early occupation of Iraq. I think maybe the thin threats that US could go Wild n' Crazy are directed toward Iran, possibly Syria, and of course N. Korea. Rumsfeld hopes that groups like al-Qaeda will provide the grounds for re-escalation needed when the American public tires of the attrition in the occupation of Iraq, but when they disappoint, nothing works on the public like some scary talk. Although Iran is carefully distancing itself from "terrorists" and has no ideological connection to al-Qaeda, the nuclear threat on them will probably recur just to rile 'em up. The next government of (ex)Saudi Arabia (QaedaArabia?) may require a more serious threat of the big sizzle in the not distant future. The fact that nukes keep coming up in the subtext is to me an indicator that the Busheviks know things are prone to get very much out of hand on the road they are taking us,and they want maximum intimidation within the limits of appearing civilized.
It is not simply scare tactics. After all, this is from the only nation on Earth which has nuked civilian cities.
The US can stomp Saddam resoundingly with no need for more cleanup than DU. Even Nuetron weapons leave to much, shall we say, stigma.
Actually, Germany is still paying reparations to Israel for that. Perhaps the USA should donate billions to Japan every year under the same premise... Now, since you brought it up: - We (apparently) are judging Iraq on past activities. - We must also judge the USA on past activities.
The difference is that the US admitted to it, and obviously hasn't bombed any cities lately. Iraq has not shown that they are holding to 1441. The UN found missles which are not allowed. The other major difference is that the US now has a different leadership (not that it is a good thing). Iraq is still run by 1 man who everyone agrees is not someone you invite over for tea. Now... do I trust Bush with nukes. Hell no... I don't trust anyone with nukes... but if someone is going to be holding the biggest gun I want them on my side. Regardless, they will not use nukes because it would have repercusions that the US is not ready to deal with. Bush may not be the best on the block, but this isn't a decision that he'd make without being told it was the only option.
Rumsfield said, "Our policy historically has been generally that we will not foreclose the possible use of nuclear weapons if attacked" I see nothing wrong with this statement. Why would we rule out any military option?
Persol 1) You mean some other country should also admit to nuking cities? They didn't. 2) The USA has bombed other cities lately. They did a hell of a lot of it in Kosovo. Again, if we hold one nation accountable for its past activities, we must hold others responsible in the same area - especially the nation complaining about that specific subject. Meaning, the USA has broken loads of treaties. Depends. Do you see the USA government as truly representing the USA people? Then wouldn't it be perfectly ok for someone in Iraq to say "I don't like anyone having nukes, but if anyone does, I want it to be MY government"?
Umm...I don't think so. Japan started the war. But maybe the Japanese should compensate the Chinese for the rape of Nanking. Yep, broke lots of treaties with Native Americans. But didn't drop any nukes on them. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Coldrake The point being.. That monkey person said "Yep, and in Germany they used to kill Jews once, so they'll do it again soon, just you wait and see." T which I responded that Germany pays reparations for its crimes, and the USA does not pay reparations for its crimes. If one does, all should. If one doesn't have to, none should have to. Saddam didn't nuke anyone either. Only the USA did. It's simple: If you use past performance as the measure by which you judge whether you should attack a nation or not, it must be applied equally. In other words, you must take into account the past performance of the one proposing to make such attacks. If you decide based on breaking treaties, you must again apply it equally, in which case we can see that, again, the nation proposing to make the attacks is also guilty. If you decide based on using WMDs, you must again apply it equally, in which case we can see that, again, the nation proposing to make the attacks is also guilty. If you decide based on using chem/bio weapons agains its own people, you must again apply it equally, in which case we can see that, again, the nation proposing to make the attacks is also guilty. If you decide based on developing WMDs, you must again apply it equally, in which case we can see that, again, the nation proposing to make the attacks is also guilty. If you decide based on links to terrorism, you must again apply it equally, in which case we can see that, again, the nation proposing to make the attacks is also guilty. Based on the claims the USA has made, is the USA telling us that the USA should be attacked?
Yup we bombed Japan... and then when they didn't give up we bombed em' again. Then when they surrendered we were evil enough to try and fix it by dumping billions into the Japanese for rebuilding what was destroyed during the war. Bad america... bad. And since when does Germany pay reparations? if you decide based on a dictator who starves his own people and has threatened to attack a US ally simpy for existing and tries to research the methods to do it, then, once again you must attack Iraq
